Smt. Parkash Malik, Panipat V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 3812/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K L ANEJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 3812/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2009-10) PRAKASH MALIK 40, ARYA NAGAR, ASSANDH ROAD PANIPAT ADUPM5338A (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-4 PANIPAT (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K.L. ANEJA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. V. R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/5/2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BY T HE ASSESSEE. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE WORTHY LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. 195000.00: DEPOSIT IN THE S/B ACCOUNT ON 18/9/200 6 EXPLAINED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS CONTRACT MONEY AGAINST AGRI. LAND AT VILLAGE BHAISWAL. DATE OF HEARING 05.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 .10.2015 180000.00: DEPOSIT IN THE S/B ACCOUNT ON 9/1/2007 . EXPLAINED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS CONTRACT MO NEY AGAINST SALE OF AGRI LAND AT VILLAGE SINKH. 280000.00: EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE AS PART OF RS. 4,0 0,000.00 RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF AGRI PRODUCE, THE A.O ACCE PTED ONLY RS. 1,20,000/- AS AGRI. INCOME, THUS MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,80,000/-. 655000.00 TOTAL THE FAMILY CONSISTS OF HUSBAND, WIFE AND ONE MINOR GRANDSON PUTTING UP WITH GRAND PARENTS. THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND HO LDING OF THE FAMILY IS 18 ACRES BEING MANAGED LIKE AN A.O.P. FURTHER THE LAN D IN QUESTION IS SITUATED IN THE MOST FERTILE AREA (ALONG THE G.T. R OAD BELT) OF HARYANA YIELDING HIGH AGRI. INCOME/YIELD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WORTH C.I.T (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL POSITION AND MADE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS BY REJECTING ALL THE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THEM, JUS T ON CONJUNCTURES AND SURMISES. 2. THE ACTIONS OF WORTHY CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE FORM OF BOUNDARY WALL AND OTHERS, MADE AT THE C OST OF RS.50,000/- LONG BACK 22 YEARS, THUS CAUSING AN IND EXED ADDITION OF RS.3,11,030/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, IS WRON G AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PRECEDING GROUNDS, THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE ARBITRARY AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES THE PREVEBGE TO RAISE ANY OTHER LEGAL GROUND AT OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2, 3 & 4. HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED TEACHER AND POSSESS CE RTAIN AGRICULTURAL LAND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED WITH PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, PANIPAT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN HER ABOVEMENTIONED BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 30/11/2009 WHEREIN SHE STATED THA T ON 18/9/2006 RS.1,95,000/- CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT BEI NG ADVANCE LEASE RENT MONEY FOR 2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE B AISHWAL, DISTT. PANIPAT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS FRO M MR. NARESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI GOVARDHAN RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE ASSANKALAN. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 15/12/2006 RS.3 LACS WAS DEPOSITE D BEING AMOUNT WITHDRAWALS ON 9/10/2006 FROM SAME BANK ACCOUNT. O N 15/12/2006 RS.4 LACS WAS DEPOSITED BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. K ANSI RAM, PUSHPA DEVI & VERSA RANI BEING SALE PROCEEDS OF PLOT SITUATED AT PUREWAL COLONY, PANIPAT. ON 9/1/2007 RS.1 LAC DEPOSITED IN THE BANK RECEIVED FR OM JAGMENDER SINGH SON OF SHRI ZILE SINGH BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND GIVEN ON CONTRACT FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE AT VILLAGE SINKH. ON 23/1/2007 RS. 3 LACS D EPOSITED IN THE BANK AGAINST WITHDRAWALS MADE ON 16/1/2007 OF RS. 1.80 L ACS AND ON 19/1/2007 OF RS. 1.20 LACS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. ON 7/2/2 007 WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 9 LACS MADE FOR INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LIC FOR THE P ERIOD OF 5 YEARS. ON 14/2/2007 AND 21/3/2007 RS. 2 LACS EACH RECEIVED BY CHEQUE FROM M/S UTTAM TRADING COMPANY, PANIPAT FOR AGRICULTURAL CRO PS. ON 2/3/2007 2 FDRS OF 2,17,506/- EACH MATURED ON 12/3/2007, 16/3/2007 19/3/2007 & 20/3/2007 CASH DEPOSITED AGAINST AGRICULTURE LAND G IVEN AT SINKH FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE TO MR. SANDEEP SON OF RAMPAL RE SIDENT OF JONDHAN KALAN. ON 24/3/2007 & 28/3/2007 RS. 9.50 CHEQUES WERE ISSU ED FOR INVESTMENT IN LIC POLICY FOR THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS SALE PROCEEDS. ADDITION OF RS.1,95,000/-, RS. 1,80,000/- & RS. 2,8 0,000/- IN TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,55,000/-. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMS THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED 4 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING 2 ACRES AT VILL. BAINSWAL AND 2 ACRES AT VILL . KOHAN, PANIPAT. HER HUSBAND HAS 5 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILL. SIN KH, TEHSIL ISARANA AND ALSO HER GRANDSON WHO IS DEPENDENT ON HER, HAVE 9 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILL. SINKH SINCE 2002. SO TOTAL AGRICULTURE LAND WITH SM T. PARKASH MALIK IS 18 ACRES. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM 4 ACRES OF LAND. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OVERLOOKED THE STATE MENTS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS IGNORED THE DOCUMENTS AS RELATES TO HERE EXPLANA TION GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. THE DR RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ON THE CIT(A)S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDERS ARE CORRECT. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS AS W ELL AS HEARD THE SUBMISSION MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT MENTION ANY STA TEMENT GIVEN BY THE PARTIES WHO HAVE GIVEN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE NEITHER THERE I S ANY REFERENCE RELATED TO LEASE DEED AND REVENUE RECORDS AND ITS EXTRACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE CRUCIAL EVIDENCE AND THE STATEMENT O F THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE PASSING THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO FAILS TO L OOK INTO THESE CRUCIAL ASPECTS WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS RE MANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/10/2015 R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05.10.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06.10.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 08.10.2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 09.10.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 09.10.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.